List of contents
- The faulty developments of philosophy
- The very normal philosophical madness
- The subjectivism in philosophy
- The constructions’ inconsistency
- The existence and essence
- The physical space
- Space as an image
- The constructions of space
- The static light ether
- The inertial frames
- The inertial frame coupled to masses
- The corpuscle-space-system
- Time and synchrony
- The wave-corpuscle-duality
- The faulty developments of philosophy
- The very normal philosophical madness
- The subjectivism in philosophy
- The constructions’ inconsistency
- The existence and essence
- The physical space
- Space as an image
- The constructions of space
- The static light ether
- The inertial frames
- The inertial frame coupled to masses
- The corpuscle-space-system
- Time and synchrony
- The wave-corpuscle-duality
When Plato wrote his famous Parable of the Cave only such real hindrances of the discovery that could mainly be reduced to non-human factors were considered. These constraints of discovery result from the limitedness of our senses. We simply cannot make our eyes look into the atom or into the far cosmos.
This incompleteness of our senses can be corrected to a high extent. It can be reduced through the use of apparatus and tools so that a picture of the reality that facilitates the needed orientation results from it.
Sadly, the falsification of our view of the object related reality view is not the only veiling that opposes the human effort for discovery. Much more serious than the falsification of direct knowledge by the incompleteness of our senses is the falsification of the view on reality by human society. Presumably, Plato did not take this into consideration.
Now, one could say: On the one side I have the physics and on the other side the politics. Politics is a dirty business, we all know that. Most things in this field are illegal. Dirt floats to the top; that is a known fact. Therefore the upper hierarchy of power is above all populated by scoundrels. And so in order for these gentlemen not to feel too lonely, they will select their accomplices according to villainous aspects if possible.
But science was formed as an ideal and outgrew the low motives of the political vice from the beginning. Here, the integrity of the discovery is simply and automatically guaranteed. Because a scientist does not want to do anything but explore the truth and he does not stand alone with this wish. A whole industry of universities and institutes supports them, provide them with aid and a salary.
However what appears to be an assurance for highest scientific efficiency emerges, at nearer inspection, as an error trap par excellence. This is because like in all human communities the importance of an opinion is calculated according to the prominence of the author. If a little assistant voices a true contention that offends against the doctrine, then this is not only wiped off the table, but the small assistant will also be defamed. Simply because he did not follow the rules. This is why the basic research of the physics drowns in a swamp of pseudo-knowledge. And nobody dares to raise their voice against such perversion.
But this is not about an absurd society of pseudo scientists that defend their sinecure with teeth, claws and a giant portion of disinterest for the true science. All this forms an almost unbreakable blockade for any philosophical discovery as Einstein’s physics caused a corrosion of all philosophical activities over the last 100 years. His theory has to be mentioned here as the main false doctrine.
The results are devastating. Philosophy, if it was building on true physical theories, would have answered the basic metaphysical questions long ago. It would have provided mankind with a basic philosophy of life which would have established an answer to why we exist and thereby a genuine perspective for action. That however did not happen because it wasn’t possible. The strength of the blemish information was too high.
Of course society is not completely innocent in this misery. After all it is quite a pleasant situation to be able to act on the basis of a nebulous science that diagnoses every metaphysical statement as useless. Then one may do anything that somehow fits into a scheme of usual behavior. That is sanctioned, criminal moral behavior.
But let's leave the social criticism and get back to the situation of the sciences. Based on the destructive ideas of Kant and Nietzsche, a basic physics has arisen that is destructive, too. In addition, it is inconsistent and contradictory. What is worst: society accepts the conglomerate of seeming knowledge that developed from this basis of physics unanimously.
So it’s not surprising that the physics spends enormous amounts of money on its particle accelerators that only lead to insignificant progress. So the members of the brotherhood of physics chase after a ‘world formula’ that cannot be gained from today’s low level of know-how. If it even exists anyway. And this is extremely questionable.
Considering everything it is about time to put the physics to test. Everything that was presented to the sciences as basic facts has to be closely examined. Then one will see that all of Einstein’s basic considerations were too shortsighted and do not withstand a more precise analysis.
The greatest folly of a considerable number of philosophers is an idea which can be described with the following sentence: thinking does not have to comply with the reality but the reality has to comply with thinking. This is how Kant put the logical connections at the top of his ideas that required thinking. He thus understood logic as a law that nature has to obey.
That reminds me of the story of the refractory bumblebee. A scientist had found out that bumblebees are unable to fly because of their body shape. He told the bumblebee this. The bumblebee unfortunately did not understand anything. After having made an effort to understanding the academic words, it lifted its wings and flew away. An educated scientist will conclude with razor like sharpness that only the bumblebee’s missing comprehension allowed it to fly.
It may be correct that nature behaves according to the laws of logic. But in order for the laws of logic to be applied to reality, something like verification has to occur. It has simply to be proven that reality arranges itself according to the logical operations of mathematics.
Unfortunately, this investigation is omitted in many cases. One would mean - therefore the philosopher and particularly the physicist would mean: I think and therefore it is the way I thought it would be. If they are wrong, however, something that is senselessly wrong is achieved.
The physics believes not to make this mistake. It always carries out the two sections (theoretical and experimental physics) side by side. A theoretical discovery is not accepted until an experiment proves its correctness. But as only inadequate experiments can be carried out for the basic statements of theoretical physics, an open space of discovery is opened up in which one can speculate at one’s whim. Therefore no great risks are taken.
It is all only a model. A model can, but does not have to, correspond with reality. Unfortunately, the physical grass roots and more than ever the general public do not notice the fact that a model is only a construction restricted to a specific sphere of action. After an adaptation phase the model is accepted as universally valid. That changes the society’s outlook and blocks all questions about the basic consistence of matter. Because the model became reality through some kind of mass consensus.
This is the point after which all further thinking goes wrong in the cognizance. From there on all awkward or not suitable facts are being ignored. It is just like in politics. One turns a blind eye even on the grotesque inconsistencies. One always has the excuse that everything is only a model and therefore only a limited copy of nature. In doing so, the inconsistencies between the existing models are not recognized.
An example might clarify this. Physics brought itself to accept the condition of finiteness. Therefore there are no infinite things in the constructions of physics. Taking a closer look, however, one will find that the condition of finiteness is only wishful thinking. That physics operates with integrals may be acceptable. One may understand integrals as the sum of immeasurable small and finite particles.
It is much more serious that space and with it also the spatial extension of objects is understood as continuous manifold. That means that all objects that are considered in physics represent an infiniteness of points. That, however, is a violation of the self chosen condition which declared to only approve finite objects in physics.
Nevertheless physics has recently always had the standard excuse that all it designs in theory is only a construction. That means that it is not immediately to be identified with the object world. Physics in this case refers implicitly to Kant. Kant also fundamentally identified space as a construct of thought. It is, however, used like a real object. That was the ideal starting point for physics.
The so-called physical science only noticed Kant’s statement about the void. That this space was simultaneously declared by him as a pure construct of thought was deliberately swept under the carpet. This method of displacement of awkward facts or findings did not only become common practice in the natural sciences.
Einstein‘s Specific Theory of Relativity is finally based on a pure construct of thought which then mutates into normal reality.
Another defect of physics, that has to do with the above said, concerns the priority of existence and essence. Up until the emergence of Einstein’s physics, existence took priority over essence. That means: before I describe an object and assign qualities to it, its existence must be guaranteed. Existence means that something exists. Essence describes what the existent object is made of. Something that doesn’t exist does not have any consistence, no quality.
These basic facts are suspended from modern physics. This becomes apparent in several points. The so-called “wave-corpuscle-dualism” should be named first of all. The word dualism expresses that the matter possesses two forms. On the one hand a corpuscle is a physical object. On the other hand it is the quality of a material system. That is of course is completely absurd and will be refuted in a later chapter on this site.
Also the equalisation of mass and energy, as physics understands it, is to be called wrong because energy, in this case, stands for the capability to cause the acceleration of a physical object. That causes the generation of a quality. This sounds as if one physical object dissolves in order to cause a change of state in another object. That would be the modification of the essence of one object through the annihilation of the existence of another object.
The third example deals directly with existence. According to Einstein, two events that occur simultaneously at different places in the same system are not perceived as simultaneous anymore for an observer in a moving system. But I argue: simultaneousness represents the necessary quality of parts existing for each other in a physical system.
If a subsystem as a whole is moving compared with another subsystem, the for each other existent objects in the first system are not supposed to exist anymore for each other in the other subsystem. That means that the essence movement of a coordinate system can annul the existence of objects. I think that thereby physics annuls the results of millennia lasting efforts of the best masterminds of mankind. It is about time to unmask this absolute absurdity as what it has been from the beginning: Hyper-scientific bullshit!
Kant, that great demolisher, thought he would be able to imagine a space without objects, however not objects without any space. This absurd idea is obviously still around. So one can just read this exact statement in Wittgenstein’s texts, and obviously the physics did not distance itself from these ideas up to now.
It has to be admitted that Kant considered all his constructs as pure objects of thought. According to his ideas, reality was only a phantom and therefore the space only an idea, not a reality. That did not preclude him, however, from expressing very object oriented statements beyond this world of inner constructions.
I would like to say: Kant obviously misplayed here like all philosophers who only accepted the inside vision of the spirit as existent. What good is an idea if it does not relate to reality. That would be too much forlorn hope!
When Kant says, for example, that discovery is only possible for material, but not for metaphysical things he therewith indirectly admits that the ghostlike reality can be discovered. That is clear. Item: if I can \not recognize reality, I cannot manufacture any combination between what I came up with as the picture of reality and what really exists.
But then thinking is only pure self-satisfaction. I come up with an idea, consider it, recognize it - but that does not have any effects on the outside. Not even can I inform others about it. Because the others are really outside and do not exist according to my idea. I should therefore completely give up on the whole thinking. And not only the thinking, but also the acting. Action that makes use of thinking in some way or other.
We realize: The outside world is necessary in order to achieve an orientation in the world. Kant now argues: The first thing that is needed for the orientation in the world is the idea of a space. Because one cannot set things in relation if items that are seen cannot be spatially classified. The can not be calculated, not be mastered.
Should it turn out that in reality no space exists, one will also drop the so necessary idea of space. Then one will say: I do not need any space in which objects exist. They act with each other and against each other and that is sufficient.
Modern physics solved this question so that it defines space as a mix between material existent objects and projected images of human ideas. It would like to make us believe that this construction represents the only possible version of physical space. It is certainly helpful in this case if the different constructions for the space are presented.
First of all there is the so-called ‘light ether’. This denotation is quite unfortunate. It is neither about ether as a chemical substance, nor is the light involved in any special way. It is, in this case, about space which is based on corpuscles. These corpuscles could be called space corpuscles. Space is therefore an object. It is beneficial that the order of the corpuscles can be absolutely chaotic. That would correspond with the independent direction of light diffusion.
The construction of space from corpuscles can occur in two different ways. On the one hand the space corpuscles can simply stretch an entire space. This would be referred to as stationary space which consists of corpuscles. The denotation of light ether was based on this and only this space. The second possibility is the connection of a certain amount of space corpuscles to a mass system. This will be, however, discussed at a later point within this theory.
Let's get down to the ‘Einstein space’. That is that space which consists of a gigantic number of uniformly motioned subspaces. But if one asks what this space consists of one does not receive any answer.
Physics does not contest this question. It selects the answer that is the most agreeable. That means refusing an answer in this case. One simply leaves the question open and speaks of coordinate systems, or more precisely of inertial coordinate systems, instead of space. Those are coordinate systems uniformly rectilinearly in motion. That are, however, only human ideas. What corresponds to these ideas in reality remains a secret. That is not satisfactory, of course.
Physics does not say what space is, but it thinks to be able to say what it is not. Indeed, it is no stationary light ether. One can accept that! Other possible constructions, however, are not considered. But so be it.
So physics does not say what space is, or if one can understand it as an object. But it does say what qualities it has. That is a start. Above all, there are two qualities of the physical space which play a role in this case.
Firstly: Space can be bent through masses that are in its proximity. This knowledge comes from an observation with solar eclipses when the course of the light of far away stars bends around the sun.
But that the space is not bent at all, but the light particles are pulled by the sun; such an interpretation cannot be accepted by the physicists. For them the course of the light is by definition the straight line in space. If this straight line is bent, the space is automatically curved. That means, in fact, that space is an object which can be affected by interaction. Physics does not take note of this, however.
There is another quality of space to make it substantial: that is its ability to facilitate position and movement of physical objects. In order for this to work, Einstein does not speak of space, but of inertial coordinate systems. Those are coordinate systems uniformly in motion.
Of course, such a system is much better suited than a simple physical space to define distances between real objects. Because an inertial coordinate system is almost already like mathematics transferred into reality. Mathematics becomes herewith immanent in the matter. In any case it becomes aparent that God, by creation of the world and space, inserted human spirit into the matter.
Now we will suppose that the construction of the ‘Einstein space’ can be refuted by simple conclusions. Then one can change, to save the idea of Einstein, to a system which is moved with great inertias. That would mean that only such inertial coordinate systems are used that are bound to mass systems.
If one wants to find out the state of space, the investigation of all constructions of space cannot be avoided. Therefore the different constructions of space shall now be investigated.
Kant ignores the topic space in his texts which shows that space was already in former times not only accepted as existent, but one almost classified its existence as mandatory. That does not necessarily need to be expected. Because as long as I examine objects with experimental equipment and the apparatus simulates the space, I do not catch sight of the space at all.
It is a different matter if I turn to outer space. Since the light of stars reaches us, the following question arose: What happens during the diffusion of light? Is a static light ether involved which flows through all bodies of the cosmos and keeps them grounded and provides them with location? In order to gain clarity it had to be found out if the speed of light is the same in all directions.
In 1881 Michelson conducted the so-called ‘Michelson-experiment’ in Chicago where he installed an interferometer on a plate that swam in a mercuric trough. So one would think that a completely smooth, vibration-free rotation of the equipment should be possible. So that no traffic would influence the experiment, all trams were stopped for the time of the experiment – triumph of the so-called science about the needs of everyday life.
The result of this fantastic spectacle was that light spreads in all directions with the same velocity. At that time one thought that the space, which was referred to as a light ether, was static. The stars were then embedded in that light ether. They swam in it as it were and moved forward in their orbit. An experiment in such a light ether should have resulted in differences in the speed of light for the different directions. This was not the case though. The result refuted the assumption of a static light ether.
The construction of space in identical motion with great measures formed by space corpuscles appeared to be too complicated for the physicists at that time. So those who therefore would like to read something truly simple should buy a textbook about theoretical physics!
As the idea of the static light ether was now refuted, one did not draw the only correct conclusion, which is that the motion of the light ether is obviously connected to the masses in the surrounding area. But instead of drawing this conclusion, space as a physical figure was abolished. Maybe not completely. One kept on talking of space. The word, however, was understood in a more mathematical way. Therefore not space was abolished. The question of what space represented was abandoned.
In the following Einstein designed his Specific Theory of Relativity. The theory does not primarily refer to space. It refers to the so-called inertial frames. Those are coordinate systems in uniform motion. These inertial frames are ideas, they are about the human view of the world. The matter itself does not have any inertial coordinate system in it. These systems are created to describe matter and to master it, not to explain it.
If two of such inertial frames move against each other, according to Einstein a time dilatation takes place in the moved system compared to the static system. An example may explain that. Imagine a missile that is launched from the earth towards Pluto. There is a clock at the starting point as well as inside the missile. The clocks indicate the same time at the time of the launch.
Now it goes off. It happens with some missiles that they speed up to half the speed of light immediately. This is what our missile does, anyway. It flies in the direction of Pluto immediately with the initial half the speed of light. It flies until its clock indicates a delay of five minutes compared to the clocks of the earth. One can calculate this point in time and go by this time on the missile.
At this moment the missile turns into the opposite direction. A whopping push – it decelerates and immediately accelerates back up to half the speed of light towards the earth. The passengers’ hats fly off their heads. After another five minutes, again measured on the clocks on earth, it lands on its starting point. Brakes. It stops with a bam, it stands!
The commander at the launch pad now argues that the missile clock would be 10 minutes behind his earth clock. The missile commander disagrees. In his opinion the missile would be regarded as the basis system. Its clock would express the actual time. The clock on earth would have to be behind by 5 + 5 = 10 minutes. Thus a typical conflict situation.
Now I regret to inform you that the two commanders were so enraged that they snatched away the clock from the other, threw it on the ground and trampled it down. They probably had succumbed to the fear that their clock would be the loser. A reaction that is absolutely human and can be forgiven. The joke, however, is on us. One thing is for sure: Whatever the result was – it was not a confirmation of the Specific Theory of Relativity.
Even if one assumes that by comparison of the clocks, the missile clock is showing 10 minutes delay compared to the earth clock. That would nevertheless mean that the inertial frames depend on the inertias that are associated with the system. And that is almost a sacrilege in the eyes of a hard-boiled fetishist respecting the Specific Theory of Relativity.
It gets even worse. Because if one wants to save the idea of the inertial frames for the definition of the physical space, only the connection of these systems with the involved masses are a possibility. In this case these are the earth and the missile which starts from earth. To be exact, one would also have to consider the systems of the planets the missile passes.
We do not want to consider situation in terms of the formulas that would play a role. We rather turn with pleasure to the question whether the available number of points in the space allocated to the inertial frames is finite or infinite. That is the crucial question. This question was not relevant for the inertial coordinate systems of the Specific Theory of Relativity. Because one could in this case understand the inertial coordinate systems as a kind of speculative space. That is something that did not have any material reality.
This, however, is a about a material object which does exists. If such an object is infinite, one can induce contradictions. Because it is material sign posts?? that the missile passes. Mathematics would call such infinity ‘actual’. That means that it is completed. Quite contrary to the potential infinity which increases over all boundaries but never reaches infinity.
One realizes that an inertial coordinate system coupled to matter may have a finite number of space points/sign posts only. In a finite system like this, light cannot dispread independently into all directions. Because a finite number of space points is always collocated inflexibly. So it prefers certain directions. Therefore the inertial coordinate system is coupled to masses incapable of showing the findings gained during the Michelson experiment.
Therefore the Specific Theory of Relativity cannot be saved by connection of its inertial coordinate systems with material masses, either.
The only possibility remaining is to think of space as being built by corpuscles. Since a static space was refuted by the Michelson-experiment, only a corpuscle-system coupled to the present masses comes is in the run for this. The construction of this space is described in a later chapter.
Einstein’s constructions are based on the thought that space can be divided into infinitely small sections. This idea, however, collides with the condition of existence for physical objects. Basically it must therefore be assumed that physical objects including space are formed discontinuously.
Even if we only look at discrete inertial coordinate systems, a pulsing time with simultaneous events leads to unrecoverable contradictions. Let's take the example of chess. In chess the pieces are alternately and rule-appropriately moved by the players. If the new rule that both players must always move their pieces at the same time is established, the game will inevitably get mixed up.
In the simple case that two pieces can knock one another off and both players want to carry this out, we have an insolvable situation: The white knight beats the black knight, however, the black knight simultaneously knocks off the white one that just wanted to knock him off. I would say: simultaneous events on the basis of a pulsing time are unambiguously impossible.
How is the situation, however, if time progresses continuously? As time always only exists as an organizing principle, it can always only be detected by the traces of last events. Therefore time cannot be immanently assigned to matter. Time is subjective, even if it is subjected to certain standards. The matter itself does not have any immanence of time.
Therefore I can also accept some kind of continuously progressing time as a starting point under pressure. Let's then have a look at how a corpuscle moves forward along a given path. For every space, and thus also for parts of the space, the following is valid: As a result of the condition of finiteness, every path is dissoluble into a sequence of individual stops within the matter.
Now if a corpuscle ‘T’ moves from stop ‘A’ to the adjacent stop ‘B’ and time progresses continuously, then there is only a single point in time (called x) in which the relocation of the corpuscle ‘T’ from ‘A’ to ‘B’ occurs.
Otherwise x can be all points in time between that point when corpuscle T contacts stop ‘A’ and stop B. So corpuscle ‘T’ could have changed from point A to point B during the entire period of time without causing any changes in the time lapse.
Therefore the entire period of time is equal between stop A and stop B regarding the movement of corpuscle ‘T’. It is thus an act of fortuity at what time x corpuscle ‘T’ moves from point ‘A’ to point ‘B’.
Physicists call this a spontaneous action and think that one cannot find the cause of this activity. The reason is that human cognition bumps against an experimental boundary. In principle this happens because the corpuscle has something like a free disposability of his activities.
The physicists are obviously not aware of the fact that they insert some kind of primal act of creation into every single change of matter. According to physical laws, all predictability is nullified if spontaneous event are accepted. It may be possible or it may not be. The law of causality is abolished. The matter dissolves within nanoseconds. That is physics since Einstein.
Therefore a continuum of time is as impossible as a continuum of space because the infinite chronological sequence would implicate a spatial sequence of substantial points. Therefore the simultaneous modification of a physical system is impossible and the modification of reality occurs in discreet single steps. In this case only a single undivided corpuscle at a time changes its position. All the other ones stay in their previous positions.
Given that a mathematics student proceeds to the fifth semester with a clean record they would now feel ambitious to become acquainted with the theoretic physics. They would believe that they will be somehow up to the standards. They would therefore sit down in one of the provided seats and would be content with themselves and the science. This state will be short-lived. It will be destroyed thoroughly in the first five minutes of the lecture.
The syntax is different in pure physics than a mathematician is used to. The air is thinner and the nimbus larger. Some kind of sublime elite wind blows down from the podium. Summations are not explained by putting summation sign in front of them, but by a change of the index spelling. A society of chosen ones is at work. They let the rest of the scientific world participate in its success only so far that they do not get the idea to put the entire physical building to a test at anytime.
Now the stupid thing about the situation is that there is a serious mistake in the basic assumptions of this scientific discipline that will unhinge the entire constructed building. Sooner or later the contradictions will be so concise that it can not go on that way. The whole thing has failed. The battle is lost. This is the exact situation in theoretical physics.
How beautiful were things at the beginning of the twentieth century. At that point, physics was met with so much success that it appeared as if the world was about to be unraveled on a physical basis. But then it became apparent that the combination of wave and corpuscle quality of light would undo everything. For one corpuscle with the small mass of a photon that showed electro-magnetic oscillations, could be only consist of such small corpuscles that every attempt to investigate these micro corpuscles was pointless from the start.
We can only presume but many things speak for it. One of the physicists had the idea of declaring the whole lot of elementary particles as undivided. With that they were the smallest corpuscles existing. Small but not too small and therefore only just suitable to be unraveled by the human spirit. But as unfortunately a photon is divisible, one also made the undivided elementary particles divisible. That was the show-stopper.
Apart from that, one felt obliged to only make those things public that supported the presented picture: the quantum attribute of light. That means that the energy that is radiated by the atom during the emission of a photon of a certain wavelength is always the same.
The word quantum suggests to the uninitiated that the photon is something very small, compact. Now everyone knows that light-microscopes fail if the objects become too small. One must switch to electron microscopes. Light simply has a too large diameter. Light won’t allow you to look into the atom.
A photon is, however, also fairly long – if I remember the words of my professor correctly. He spoke 10 meters or so. What’s more, the single photon is produced successively through the oscillation of an electron in between the different energy states of an atom. How can an undivided elementary particle be produced successively? That would mean that another undivided photon would poke out of the atom during the whole process of creation. Until the creation process is completed. Then it may finally dart off in unmodified form.
Pardon, not quite. If the photon falls onto a prism, it gets split up. It now moves, cut open longitudinally, into separate directions. Or one forces it through a small gap. It is then that the photon’s considerable thickness becomes noticeable. It jolts and dodges to the side. That prompted Heisenberg to create his fabulous uncertainty principle.
It becomes apparent how the small foolish determination that elementary particles are undivided yet divisible made always new theories necessary. And those only to cover the first untruth. But as of all these rescue efforts the situation became more and more confusing and the public slowly voiced their doubts regarding the entire theory, mankind was, without further ado, declared stupid.
One simply said that the laws of physics were not vivid enough. Whatever this catchword means. It certainly means this one thing: whoever detects contradictions in the constructions and theories of physics – he and only he is to blame for this misery. Did he have to poke his nose into physical pots that were slowly rotting away? And even stir them? That is truly unnecessary. The reason for not to being allowed to do so was the non-vividness. That was from now on measure of all things in physics. So everything was brought into best order.